posted at 8:41 pm on June 12, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Never underestimate the sneakiness when you’re dealing with The Most Transparent Administration, Evah‘s tortured internal conflict between pretending to heed the voices calling for pragmatic economic growth and appeasing the vociferous green interests nipping at their heels. The Obama administration just threw a major bone to said interests with a reevaluation that’s going to come in particularly handy in producing very official- and serious-sounding studies and reports, but it was carried out in a very quiet maneuver that I’m sure they’re hoping will pass by the public eye generally unnoticed.

The Obama administration uses their “social cost of carbon” estimate as a tool to price out how environmentally costly they think proposed regulations are going to be, and they just significantly ramped up that price — and buried the move in a small rule about microwave ovens. Via Bloomberg:

The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops. …

With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly….

Even supporters questioned the way the administration slipped the policy out without first opening it for public comment. The change was buried in an afternoon announcement on May 31 about efficiency standards for microwave ovens, a rule not seen as groundbreaking.

“This is a very strange way to make policy about something this important,” Frank Ackerman, an economist at Tufts University who published a book about the economics of global warming, said in an interview. The Obama administration “hasn’t always leveled with us about what is happening behind closed doors.”

No kidding. This is going to be a very useful mechanism for Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and etcetera in justifying the economic costs of their many rules and regulations — and boy oh boy, does the EPA have big plans for us. It really is much better for them if, all of a sudden, their impact studies concerning their many zealous ideas for reshaping our energy sector start to sound ever so much worse — and heck, why should the public need to know the real reason why? It’s all for their own good, after all.

When a progressive uses the term, “social cost of (insert appropriate noun or verb here)”, it really means,

We are going to use non-quantifiable factors to justify regulations intended to destroy something we hate on purely emotive and dogmatic grounds. No facts required. Plus, we have the power, so therefore we can get away with it. Go F**k Yourselves, peasants.

That’s really all there is to it. And Hitler would be proud of them, Godwin’s Law be damned.

The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops. …

Horseshit. How’s that for a carbon footprint. You can’t even crap anymore without someone taxing it.

Every time there’s a hurricane or tornado or heat warning or flood I can imagine the ghouls in the Obama admin rubbing their palms together with glee, as it reinforces their meme that global warming is harming the country.

It is just about time for us (in our millions) to load up the station wagon and head for Washington D.C., bringing what ever we need to cause the change we need in the dictatorship we seem to be stuck with.

For one thing, even if there was global warming traceable to human carbon use, there is no evidence it would cause diminished crop output. In fact, it would extend growing seasons and increase the amount of arable land – as has every warming period since the dawn of agriculture.

So they make false assumptions, assign arbitrary costs to them, and then regulate as much as they want.

And to think that microwaving is one of the most efficient, least fuel intensive, and therefore ‘greenest’ form of cooking ever invented. If they wanted to cut ‘carbon emissions’ they would be putting a rebate sticker on every microwave oven around… instead they wish to tax the cost of carbon use, period.

It is just about time for us (in our millions) to load up the station wagon and head for Washington D.C., bringing what ever we need to cause the change we need in the dictatorship we seem to be stuck with.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on June 12, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Yeah, because it worked out so well for the Bonus Marchers. Now, if you get Louis Farrakhan to back us…different story.

But, do remember that these congress critters are (for the most part) back home a good part of the year. We need to be protesting them in our respective states and districts. TEA Party events are fine, but we need to be organized to show up when and where the Pols will be speaking.